Supreme Court Victory -ish.

[AlertsList at FirearmsCoalition.org (Firearms Coalition)]

       We won!  Mostly.

       The Supreme Court concluded today that the Second Amendment does 
indeed protect an individual right to arms and that the DC handgun ban 
and requirement that all guns be rendered inoperable within the home, 
were violations of that protection and must be changed.  Specifically, 
the Court ordered that the District of Columbia must allow Richard 
Heller to register a handgun and be issued a permit to carry it about 
within the confines of his home in a functional condition for purposes 
of self-defense. 

       The Court did not delve deeply into what restrictions would or 
would not be acceptable under the Second Amendment though their order 
that Heller be allowed to register a handgun and be issued a permit 
clearly suggest that they consider such registration and permitting 
acceptable limitations. 

       In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia also stated that 
prohibiting felons and mental incompetents from firearms was clearly 
constitutional and repeated the thoroughly specious argument that he 
expressed during aural arguments to the effect that weapons which are 
not, "in common use," are not included within the Second Amendment's 
guarantees.  He specifically gave the example of M-16 rifles being 
common to military use, but uncommon to civilian possession -- 
completely ignoring the fact that the only reason M-16's are not 
commonly possessed is that their sale to private citizens was extremely 
complicated and cost prohibitive for the first twenty years of that 
arm's existence and has been completely banned for the past twenty two 
years. 

       No doubt Scalia and his co-signers included this information -- 
which has absolutely no bearing on the case at hand -- to assuage the 
fears of the Solicitor General and others who have suggested that an 
"individual right" decision would open a floodgate of assaults on 
existing federal laws restricting machineguns and "destructive 
devices."  Regardless of the motive for the position, it is as totally 
nonsensical as the ridiculous suggestions put forward in the two 
minority opinions.

       The length to which the dissenting Justices are willing to twist 
history and contort language in attempts to justify their outrageous 
positions is nothing less than staggering.  The intellectual gymnastics 
engaged in by the Justices in their efforts to support their idiotic, 
fore drawn conclusions should seriously shake the faith of the most 
trusting citizen.  It is simply outrageous that men and women of 
intellect and learning would take up a position and then selectively 
sort through history for tiny threads of support for that position while 
completely ignoring the full, rich tapestry which displays a clear 
picture of an absolutely opposite position.

       The intellectual dishonesty displayed by the dissenting Justices 
-- and to a much lesser degree by the majority -- should be deeply 
disturbing to every thinking American.  These are not trivial matters 
that are being dealt with by the Court.  These are issues that reach 
down to the basic founding principles of our republic.  How can we 
entrust matters of such great import to people who demonstrate a 
willingness to contort history to their own personal beliefs and 
philosophies rather than examining evidence and drawing rational 
conclusions based on that evidence.

       Today's decision by the Supreme Court makes two things abundantly 
clear:

* Defenders of liberty and our Constitutional Republic face a long and 
tedious battle to secure and defend our rights.

* It is absolutely critical that the next President, and every President 
thereafter, is committed to appointing judges and justices who will 
interpret law and the Constitution based on history and facts, not their 
own agendas.

 

       The courts have the potential to undermine and ultimately destroy 
our nation and our way of life.  It is incumbent upon all of us to 
diligently work against the erosion that is eating away at the very 
foundations of our society. 

      

       Below is the official syllabus (summary) from the Court "Reporter 
of Decisions."

       It pretty well sums up the majority opinion.

      

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 07--290. Argued March 18, 2008---Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime

to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of

handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed

handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses;

and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms

unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.

Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a

handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He

filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the

city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing 
requirement

insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in

the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the

use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed

the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second

Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and

that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that

firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for

self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a

firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for

traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pp. 2--53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but

does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative

clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it

connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2--22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation

of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically

capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists

feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in

order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing

army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress

power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear

arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.

Pp. 22--28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing

rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately

followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28--30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious

interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals

that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.

Pp. 30--32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts

and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the

late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32--47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation.

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264--265, refutes the individualrights

interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not

limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather

limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by

the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47--54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any

manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed

weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment

or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast

doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms

in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of

arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those

"in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition

of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Pp. 54--56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to

self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban

on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an

entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the

lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny

the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this

prohibition---in the place where the importance of the lawful defense

of self, family, and property is most acute---would fail constitutional

muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the

home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible

for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and

is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument

that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced 
arbitrarily

and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy

his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment

rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and

must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56--64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a

dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,

joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,

      SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailapp.modwest.com/pipermail/fcalerts-list/attachments/20080626/22
d20ac7/attachment-0001.html